It’s not the numbers – 420 horsepower, 430 lb-ft of torque, 0-100 mph in 10.5 seconds according to Car & Driver, braking from 60 to rest in 103 feet according to Edmunds – that turn the CTS from an indirect successor of the Fleetwood into the most dynamic car in its class. No, the sensation of athleticism in the CTS V Sport is not entirely quantifiable.

The overwhelming impression that the CTS V Sport is a sports car, rather than a car that relies on feature count or historic imagery to excite, is an impression gleaned from a few pushes of the console-mounted driver-selectable button: Tour becomes Sport becomes Track.

Thing is, even in that most comfort-oriented Tour mode, the CTS V Sport comes across as a lively package, like a frisky little subcompact hatchback which suggests a performance version with stiffened suspension and a bit more power would be a home run.

Except, in the CTS V Sport, power isn’t lacking to begin with, and rather than requiring a completely different car, button pushes are all that’s necessary. In other words, this isn’t Kia’s FlexSteer, which gradually weights up and always feels artificial, none of its three modes hitting the mark.

The CTS’s available options create new experiences.

One would expect a car that steers with this level of accuracy and immediacy, a car that can be tossed into a corner and further realigned in the case of a mole running across the road, would suffer from ride imperfections. Even in Tour mode, the CTS V Sport is firm, but don’t mistake firm for harsh. Firm equals level; firm doesn’t detract from straight-ahead tracking on the highway. There’s no denying the increased aggression of Sport and especially Track modes, but the V Sport easily remains within the borders of comfort, far from a punishing zone. Whether this is down to 50/50 weight distribution or nitpicky engineers who sought perfection, I don’t care.

To drive a car that can do the things this car can do when it’s being hustled, while still managing to feel even in that high-octane moment like a device that isolates only what its driver wants to isolate, is to not want to drive other cars.

GM Canada delivered the CTS V Sport to my driveway for one week, a week in which I drove around town far more often than necessary. I was prone to forgetting things at the grocery store. Oops, better head back out. Everybody went for extended ride-alongs which routinely featured multiple on-ramps. I had read and I had been told that this was a special car. People can’t help but spout the specs in a can-you-believe fashion. This isn’t even the craziest CTS, they’d all say.

But I didn’t keep getting back in the V Sport for completely unnecessary drives to nowhere because of the specs, because of the bold front grille or the cooled seats or the torque that seemingly swelled as speeds increased. I would have been similarly excited about routinely driving the CTS V Sport if it was a 320-horsepower car. This level of interaction and athleticism would have auto reviewers excited regardless of the class in which the car competes, but I couldn’t help but be especially pleased because of the increasing softness in a segment which used to be full of sports sedans, softness that’s thankfully missing in this Cadillac.

By the end of its stay, I realized that we thought nothing of travelling in a group of four adults with a rear-facing child seat in the back, as well. It dawned on me that, given the frequency with which I applied heavy doses of throttle and the little time spent on highways, fuel economy of 19.9 mpg was actually quite good. The user interface wasn’t as frustrating as it was in the ATS last year or even the SRX earlier this year, but I wonder what would be so terribly wrong with buttons that depress.

The CTS comes across as a very well-built car with high-grade materials. Yet that left-side signal stalk is disappointing, not because you’ll see a similar piece in lesser GM vehicles, but because it is textured and operates like a low-grade item in a rather expensive car, because it resides directly beside magnesium shift paddles. Those paddles, by the way, allow a driver to control the 8-speed transmission with less intelligence than the transmission itself possesses.

It only makes sense that the CTS’s disappointing sales performance relates to the previously mentioned expense. It’s true, the CTS is a perfectly reasonable value in comparison with its newfound direct rivals like the BMW 5-Series and Mercedes-Benz E-Class. But the couple who visits a Cadillac dealer as their three-year-old CTS’s lease expires is likely to be somewhat dismayed by the new car’s elevated price and equally discouraged by the size of the ATS’s rear seat. ATS sales are down 21% this year. CTS volume is level so far this year but fell 10% in June and 29% in July. It’s not selling like it used to.

Personally, I am also put off by CUE, but not to the extent that I would not learn to cope with its inefficiencies over time. Unfortunately, I’ve been told that even at one-third the cost, pre-owned a few years from now, the current Cadillac CTS V Sport will never be featured as this family’s main car. Everyone agreed that sitting in the CTS was a lot like sitting in a cave, no matter how high you raise the seats. Mrs. Cain, lacking all manner of WNBA-like stature, struggled mightily to see the outside world. At 5-foot-11, I myself felt enveloped, and not in a good way. Blind spot monitoring and lane departure warnings and cameras assist, but they don’t overcome low roofs and high beltlines.

Perhaps she would feel different if she recognized the CTS V Sport for what it is, rather than what it looks like. This is a performance car, not a roomy luxury sedan.

We would also feel different if the CTS V Sport didn’t cost so much. Which, in a way, it doesn’t. Cadillac’s $59,995 V Sport and $69,995 V Sport Premium become $56,995 and $66,995 cars, respectively, with current $3000 discounts. That’s a start. Setting style aside, a lowering of the beltline would be helpful if I’m to make my case, too.

I really, desperately want to like Cadillac’s current lineup, but – and I’m only the millionth person to say this – they simply can’t compete with the German and Japanese luxury marquees on a parallel-pricing basis right now. Not that their cars are inherently worse, but there’s a reason that the mid-90’s Audi A4 had a $4k pricing advantage over the contemporary 3-series, and that the LS400 was launched as price-competitive with the 5-series but was size- and feature-competitive with the 7-series.

Until Cadillac puts out three solid generations of competitive models and builds equivalent brand equity, it’s hard to imagine Americans (to say nothing of the rest of the world) choosing to drop $60k on one over the equivalent E-Class or 535i.

My sister got me some leather elbow patches for my birthday, but that was 7 months ago and I still haven’t sewed them on. I’ve got the argyles, I’ve got the corduroy pants, now I just need to get a pipe and my professorcore look will be complete.

Disclaimer: I actually do wear a fedora, but only when appropriate, like with a suit or ocassionally a sport coat and slacks. And it’s a real fur felt, too, not a wool felt.
If you’re getting a “fedora” and it’s tweed, it’s not a fedora. It’s probably a $20 trilby you picked up off the rack at JC Penney.

” it’s hard to imagine Americans (to say nothing of the rest of the world) choosing to drop $60k on one over the equivalent E-Class or 535i”

You’re a bit out of date here. $60k buys a well-optioned 2015 C400 or 335. The effective interior room of the CTS is more inline with the C and 3 as well. So pricing-wise, I think Cadillac is right on the money.

But the problem is that BMW knew what it was doing when it went soft. Driving sucks these days. People that can afford 60 grand for a car don’t have the time to spend a week making unnecessary trips to the grocery store and finding multiple empty highway on-ramps. Well, most of them don’t. Some do. But not enough.

Chicago, I disagree with your second paragraph. The CTS is size- and price-matched against the German mid-level cars: it’s longer than all of them, and has more interior volume than any other than the BMW. It’s also plenty easy to option a CTS into the mid-60s. See http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-cadillac-cts-36-vs-audi-a6-bmw-535i-mercedes-e350-comparison-test-review-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-6. According to TrueDelta, the CTS 3.6 has a $2,450 price advantage compared to the 535i, but the 335i has a $7,500 price advantage compared to the CTS.

Nearly everyone will scream “apples vs oranges” regarding the comparison I will now make, and so be it:

Why TF would I even think about paying anywhere near 60k for this car when there is the Dodge Challenger Hellcat (same price), upcoming Mustang GT (probably around 33k decently equipped, and then even less with time; aka about 1/2 the price), and a SLEW of other cars that have as large or larger back seats, better visibility, close to or as decent build quality, better reliability, nearly as much (or way more HP/torque)…

…I wouldn’t. And guess what the biggest reasons are?

1) This no longer has the plush ride quality inherently once associated with Cadillac;

2) This thing has a rear seat that literally borders on less than anything close to “large enough” for a sedan that’s meant to be a daily driver.

I’ll go one step further; I’d take a V6 Accord Coupe with a proper manual over this bizarre Cadillac, pocket the $30,000 in savings, and I’ll have a more useful daily driver, that is not even that far off the mark in terms of 0-60 times (for those who care about such things).

You see it other people see it, but most don’t. There are always better deals vis-à-vis lux barges, but modern times people seem blinded by bling. What else explains that a BMW 3 sells more than a Ford Mondeo in the UK? How can a C Class kill a Renault Lagun? And the list goes on.

It doesn’t have anything to do with technical characteristics. It is lux badge lust. And Caddy does well pursuing that market and must do so doing what they are trying to do. No amount of plushness would distinguish Cadillac.

I agree – the main problem Cadillac has in this market segment is that its a newcomer, relatively speaking. But if it keeps on building product like this, it won’t take all that long for it to start taking sales from BMW or Mercedes.

I would venture to say in V trim, for the money, the Germans don’t even compare….

I would love to have a V wagon 6MT. Conceivably the most unique car ever made. It appeals to the all ten of us in Merica, wagon lovers, MT lovers, LS power lovers, but family men……so 80k won’t do. One did not have to clairvoyant to see the end of that car the day it came out.

I’d settle for dropping this engine in the Chevy SS, giving it a stick and full fold down rear seats. A wagon would be preferred, but I can live with it (maybe, I haven’t been without a wagon/hatch for over 17 years). Target $55K.

The SS is already walking a pricing tightrope because it is expensive to build cars in Australia, particularly for import to the US. The last thing it needs is an engine that is much more expensive but no more powerful than the one it already has. The only real advantage of the LF3 over the LS3 is NVH, and NVH matters a lot less in a $45k Chevy than it does in a $65k Cadillac.

420 turbocharged hp will feel much more powerful than 420 NA hp in normal driving, especially as I live at altitude.
And i could care less about the costs of whatever, I as a consumer just know what I want. If I don’t get it, well I’ll buy whatever suits me best.

“Those paddles, by the way, allow a driver to control the 8-speed transmission with less intelligence than the transmission itself possesses.”

I am sorry, but I am sick of this journo-marketing BS.
Yes, today’s automatics are amazing, and work very well, but they still do not have the “intelligence” of a driver that is well trained and able to see and anticipate not only what the road conditions are but what they want to do as well.

Honda has been the only company with the engineering “balls” to come out and say, all things being equal (i.e. gear ratios and # of gears) a driver can select gears better than any computer currently available – for normal street driving – not racing. This is because a driver can tell if a hill is coming, if they want to accelerate, if they want to quit being sporty…all of this a driver can know NOW. A computer must react. Regardless of how well a computer is tuned, they will always react, as they are currently use in cars.

I’ve driven many great new autos. If you pay attention with your much higher level of intelligence, one will see they are always reacting to an input. They are always waiting to see if you want to stay “sporty” or you are done or they are too late determining that on your lazy drive home you want to hammer out of a turn. That will always be second to a very intelligent human than can not only react but anticipate.

Before everyone jumps on me, my statement above do not negate the other qualities of a modern auto (very fast, smooth, etc). For most driving they are wonderful. I am just sick of the BS journalism talk.

The one thing that an automatic can not do is anticapate the need for a lower gear. Especially under a light throttle, my Acura is slow to down shift. Nor can it sense that I will want to pass someone in a few moments and down shift in preparation. It’s these “fuzzy” logic situations that computers fail us every time, and not just in cars.

“Yes, today’s automatics are amazing, and work very well, but they still do not have the “intelligence” of a driver that is well trained and able to see and anticipate not only what the road conditions are but what they want to do as well.”

The quality of driver in the US is directly related to the quality of driver’s education offered in high school. Many drivers are more concerned about responding to texts than observing road conditions.

I can’t wait to drive this car. Anyone who has spent any time with a magnetic ride control equipped car knows that it is head and shoulders above anything else available for delivering the best mix of comfort and control. It’s really that good. In my STS, all it took was an aggressive stab at the wheel and the car instantly transformed (maybe that’s why the new logo was chosen) from a smooth-riding luxury car to a serious sports sedan. No other car I’ve ever owned gave me such confidence when pushed hard.

I agree that the price is high. I suspect that some content rearrangement along with some stealth repricing will adjust this. I also agree that Cadillac seats leave a fair amount to be desired. I seriously wish GM would fix these things.

But, make no mistake, this is a great car and GM should be proud of it.

Nice European turbo sports car. Since when did Cadillac mean European turbo sports cars?

Other than the third brake light, and the ridiculous eyelashes on the headlights which Cadillac only came up with last year and their best selling model doesn’t even have, it doesn’t look like a Cadillac.

Not that recognizable as Cadillac is worth a great deal anymore. But this isn’t recognizable as anything. Luxury is a fashion statement. Who’s going to pay upwards of $25,000 for a three year lease that tells the world nothing at all?

Sure it’s a nice car, the world that supports $700 lease payments looks a lot more like commuting in gridlock than it does Burgerkingring and if you’re forfeiting the conspicuous consumption dick measuring contest then a $250 a month Accord is a pretty nice car too.

The Cadillac dealer here is advertising 10K off sticker on the whole CTS line for a reason. I don’t suppose a $60,000 turbo edition is going to sell much differently than a $70,000 edition but at the lower end of the lineup that’s better than 20% off. And they still don’t sell very well.

This is a great car, but it pretty much embodies everything wrong with Cadillac’s gameplan today. The cross section of people who care about driving engagement and people who have 70 large to spend on any car, let alone a CADILLAC, may as well not exist. Cadillac couldn’t even make the business case for a stickshift V6 in the supposedly sporty ATS, or a stickshift ANYTHING in the CTS. As good as autos and DSGs are, when it comes to driving engagement a stickshift is pretty much ground zero. If customers don’t want stickshift in this car, what makes you think they want sharp chassis responses and all that?

People dump on BMW for going soft… but people forget BMW is a business. Its customer base wants softer cars, and so that’s what they build. They still have options for folks who want something more hardcore, and if those options aren’t enough there is always the aftermarket. But by softening the cars they cast a wider net, sell more cars and stay in business. GM doesn’t seem to realize Cadillac is a business that has to turn profit, and rather than invest in relevant techs and segments (small CUVs and hybrid/plug in tech) for their flagship brand, they’ve built cars to goals and metrics the market has largely moved on from, for customers that pretty much don’t exist. And the growing presence of incentives + increasingly high days unsold + shedding of production capacity for the ATS/CTS speak to this.

Great cars, WRONG cars. Huge tragedy as GM finally got it right, 10-15 years too late. Cadillac needs a “Super Volt” and a small premium CUV 1000000000000000000000x more than it needs a pair of overpriced, hyperfocused, high silled, CUE saddled sport sedans.

sportyaccordy,
You certainly have the right diagnosis. I don’t concur on the prescription. To my mind, Cadillac should focus on the CUV/SUV market, and build it’s brand around Escalades for every size need, preserving a ‘standard of the world’ capability and quality across the model range.

Regardless of Cadillac’s brand, I wish they would just pick one, and execute the hell out of it.

I think CUV/SUV wise, Caddy would be wise to dump the A&S dodgeball look of the SRX and go for the boxy but chiseled/modern look of the Escalade across the board. I don’t think they would be off the mark to ape Range Rover’s lineup, to be honest.

I do think plug ins are the future though, and there’s no better way to develop technology than to put it in a high margin vehicle and siphon profits back into its continued development. A Chevy Volt with a mainstream interior and middle of the road performance is not worth $40K, even with the amazing plug in drivetrain. But with another $10K in upgrading the interior and giving it more horsepower, suddenly its a viable green alternative to the increasingly soft “sport sedans” and other offerings in that price range, as well as a showcasing of GM’s technical prowess and forward thinking.

I’m prob biased as I really want a used Volt for my wife, but I do really see that tech as the future, and I think it’s a shame that GM isn’t really cashing in on it.

I posted this yesterday, but it bears posting again: Cadillac’s main competition is BMW and Mercedes (and Audi), and if you look at the top selling nameplates for each brand, it’s the 3-series and 5-series for BMW, and the C-Class and E-class for Mercedes. If you want to take part of that market away, you better bring something with genuine sport-sedan cred. And the CTS and ATS both have that. If you don’t have that, then you fail. Ask Lexus, which tried cracking this market with the IS and GS, which for the most part haven’t sold very well, despite all the Lexus reputation, dealer experience, and other brand attributes. Why? Because until recently, neither line began to offer the kind of driving experience that someone in the market for a BMW or Mercedes would appreciate.

In fact, I’d say the main thing holding Lexus back is the lack of truly great sport sedans. its’ mainstays are the ES sedan, which is a Japanese Buick, and the RX. And that’s it.

Yes, Cadillac could use a small CUV. Yes, the ATS and CTS have some flaws. But they’re great to drive, and if you want to play in this market, that’s the first step.

This fixation with “sport sedan credibility” defies logic. You say “sport sedan cred” is absolutely necessary to survive in the market…. OK then, how do you explain Mercedes’ continued success? The closest thing they have to a sport sedan is the CLS. The C class and E class have NEVER been sport sedans. And BMW has softened up the 3 and 5 to the point that the 3 is far from the dynamic champ in the segment.

And yet, the 3/C/5/E are the top sellers in their respective classes. Not to mention, the E class has only recently begun to get a rep as a sporty car… its legacy and brand is largely about luxury and durability. So this whole “sport sedan cred” thing is BS. Nobody cares. The bulk of this market is not buying sport packages or manual transmissions.

And the ES/RX are what enable Lexus to exist as it does. That is like saying the Cayenne/Panamera hold Porsche back. From what? Operating losses?

Stop confounding your personal tastes with what makes cars sell. The funniest part is I bet you are not at all in the market for even a base ATS.

Sportyaccordy, BMW and Mercedes INVENTED the small and midsize RWD sport sedan. Mercedes sedans may be less sporty than BMWs, but they’re no slouches on a back road, and never have been. And BMW may have softened the 3-series up, but it’s still a first rate back road killer. That’s why these two brands own the sport sedan / Euro-sedan (call it what you will) market as it stands.

And the Porsche comparison isn’t valid – they don’t offer a full line, and the SUVs are meant to supplement sales of the sports cars. In the case of BMW and Mercedes, the compact and sport sedans are their bread and butter.

And no one’s been able to crack that market because no one’s been able to build a compact or mid size RWD that was as satisfying to drive as anything from BMW or Mercedes.

Lexus tried, but the IS and GS are sport sedan simulators. Infiniti has tried, and has been more successful, but the G has always felt cut-rate and cheap, and the M has never been a real E-class/5 series alternative.

The ATS and CTS are the best distillation of the BMW/Benz Euro-sedan essence yet – they’re good looking, well finished, and drive beautifully.

Mercedes Benz does not build sport sedans. The closest they came was the 190 E 2.3 16V nearly 30 years ago. MB makes luxury cars. There is nothing sporty about an E350, which is MB’s core product.

And even if MB did build sport sedans (and they don’t), their core market is not buying or equipping them to those ends. Most folks barely have access to back roads, and even those that do are not pushing their non-sport pack E350s on them.

The IS, GS, ATS and CTS are all currently more satisfying to drive than the BMW and MB offerings in those segments. My question to you is, if sportiness is such a primary driver of sales success, why are all of these cars not just well off of BMW and MB’s offerings, but their own sales peaks compared to much less sporty offerings of the past?

No matter how much you repeat that sportiness is tantamount, at the end of the day there just isn’t any proof that this is true. Claiming that MB’s reputation is built on its sportiness is just a bold faced lie, and everything else you’ve claimed is at best a stretch.

What are AMG trim MBs then? Or the Sport trim lines of the C and E class. Sure seem like sport sedans to me. Even back in the day, a w123 or w124 went around corners just as well as the equivalent BMW, they just didn’t goad you into it in quite the same way. I owned a BMW 535i and a MB 300TE at the same time – the wasn’t much in it between them other than the BMW was more enthusiastic.

People also seem to have a weird recollection of what BMW was back in the day. I suppose it is because everything else was so much worse back then. Nothing remotely sporty about a 528e by today’s standards, but I guess it was a sportscar compared to a Ford LTD.

@krhodes1 an AMG Benz is a high performance luxury sedan. C63 is probably the closest thing they have to it… I would call the C63 a sports sedan.

I don’t really want to get tied up into semantics. The big point here is that BMW and MB are not selling cars on the virtues of sportiness. And most BMW/MB/luxury segment buyers do not care about sportiness. If they did, BMW would not have killed off the manual transmission in all of the 5 series’ trims but the M5, for example.

The reason noone has been able to “crack that market”, is because those in the market for those cars are primarily in it for the brand. They want a BMW or a Mercedes. Not the most entertaining car with which to “kill backroads.”

I don’t mean to imply the cars themselves are completely irrelevant. The two definitely have a reputation to uphold. But the exact same car with a Caddy badge would have to cost $20+K less than a Benz to sell equivalently. Meaning, as long as bean counters yay or nay models at GM, Mercedes engineers have an additional $20K to play with when developing a new model. Of course, as always, this lack of competition has allowed the Krauts to get a bit soft, but perhaps not yet $20K soft.

If driving enjoyment was even 10th on BMWs list of priorities, they’d still be building and evolving the greatest passenger car engine ever built, their NA I6s. Instead of hawking yet another line of boring-as-bread-boxes EuroDronic Turbo Appliances.

But no, The Stig makes hubby proud by hustling the petrodiesel faster than a proper road engine around some utterly non representative roadcourse, and wifey feels good about the dronecage with the bling badge being successfully tuned to game some useless sodabubble metric….

And they’re the ones buying the darned things, after all. Not people who care much about driving just for the heck of it. Those guys have longe since bolted for Evos, ‘Stangs, Fiesta STs or BMW’s increasingly entertaining line of bikes anyway.

BMW will sell you a car from mild (base 328i/528i) to wild (M3/M5). They always have – back in the ’80s it was 325e to M3, or 528e to M5. There was NOTHING remotely sporting about a 528e – my Mom drove one for 250K miles. It was very much a German Buick. But an e28 M5 was a work of art in its day.

Mercedes has always been on the mild side, but turned up the wick to compete with BMW. Similarly, Cadillac needs BOTH. The wild cars get folks excited, even if it is the cooking cars that 95%+ actually buy. And don’t forget, there is a LOT more profit in a $70K CTS-V Sport than in a base CTS.

Idiots like me that google “merecedes e” get confused and think they build them because they sell them. I just have to keep scrolling down past the E250 BlueTEC Sedan to the E63 AMG 4MATIC Sedan and E63 AMG S-Model 4MATIC Sedan. At 0-60 in 3.7 @$92,770 and 3.5 @ $99,770 respectively, they seem quick like sports sedans. Maybe AMG doesn’t count. But M counts and V counts, right?

The 528e was not remotely close to a Buick…especially at that time. The E28 was incredibly spartan with firm seats, no nonsense comprehensive instrumentation, firm, fully independent suspension and very efficient small displacement engines…Which Buick meets that description? A LeSabre? with velour interior, solid rear axle, no instrumentation, inefficient V6 or V8 in the B body version…Even in the basic form, BMW’s of that era were very sporting

It was like a Buick in that it was unassuming, comfortable, slow, and not remotely sporting, especially with the 3spd slushbox. It was a really, really, really nice Buick, but it was a FAR cry from being anything anyone but an ad exec would call the “Ultimate Driving Machine”. And nothing wrong with that, it was still a very good car for a very long time. Just not at all exciting.

I fail to see how the current basic 528i is different in any way, other than being about 50X better. It is just as brand compliant as a loaded M5. Different strokes for different folks.

Buyers of midsize and large sport sedans want automatics, whether you think so or not. BMW recently cried uncle and took the stick out of the 550i after years of selling about 20 of them per month. Audi has never offered a stick in its hottest A6/S6 variants. Mercedes has never offered a stick in any midsize or large sedan in the US, ever. And yet the sporty versions of these cars still sell, albeit in the limited volumes that are inherent to the $60k+ pricepoint.

There are really two problems with the current CTS, and neither one of them is the sportiness. The biggest one is that it doesn’t have the brand equity to be priced straight-up against the competition. It needs a $8k discount. The other one is that GM still hasn’t completely mastered the luxury interior. They need to benchmark Audi for their next interior the way they benchmarked old BMWs for this generation’s chassis.

I love reading complaints about this segment not having manuals. Spend more than 10 mins in the showroom at your local BMW/Mercedes/Cadillac dealer, and look at the shoes people are wearing. People don’t want to mess up the toe boxes on $400 loafers pushing a clutch in during their otherwise sedate commutes.

I want a car that behaves exactly how I expect without significant involvement 90% of the time, and that responds reasonably well when I poke it with a stick.

True. Just like the exterior styling, it may not be your cup of tea, but the quality is there. That’s why the V Sport, and Vs are important. Match or beat the Germans in road handling/performance. It is a very tangible means of eliminating brand inequality. If the higher performance models don’t sell well, it still seems like money in the bank for GM. They can recommend entry level models $5-6K less than an E or a 5 to those interested in this segment that don’t want to spend that much or would rarely appreciate the sportiness.

The problem is that the devil is in the details, and GM doesn’t sweat the details very well. They have lovely wood and leather, and then they stick an ugly 90’s-tastick instrument panel in there. And the cheap and nasty turn signal lever that you touch all the time. The Germans don’t do this. You need consistency, or the crap parts stick out like a sore thumb, no matter how good the rest of it is. And then there is the stupidity of having a base motor that is less good than their excellent 2.0T.

Mercedes has never offered a stick in a mid-size sedan in the US? You have a funny definition of never. The W124 sedan was certainly offered with a stick.

I can certainly understand not offering sticks NOW, even though I don’t like it. BMW still offers sticks in the models where there is demand for them, but BMWs market segment is ultimately slightly different than Mercedes of Audi.

I do agree with your two points though – the CTS (and ATS too) are too expensive, and not QUITE nice enough inside. Great for a GM product, but not up to the standards of the Germans, even in these slightly cost-cut times.

And you would think wrong. The 5spd W124 was not even all *that* rare a car here in New England, where we cheap, er, thrifty, Yankees still actually BUY stickshift luxury cars. It even had a dog-leg 5spd. I have driven several examples, both gas and diesel.

You’re wrong. E-classes from the W124 on back were offered with manual in the US in some models. Granted, the take rate on the W124 300E manual was abysmal, so it was dropped for ’88, but it’s not hard to find a W123 or W115 240D with 3 pedals.

And they need their LS400 to come back and grab old Cadillac and import customers. Something the size of the LS460 that has decent performance, smooth quiet ride and stretch out room. A thoroughly modern ’66 Deville. Make these the bread and butter cars and they will sell. Again, impeccable quality is a must. Simple it seems but they will not do it. BTW, the XTS while a good car, is not THAT car.

Those customers are too cheap for Cadillac (and for Lexus, which is why ES sales have stayed good as LS sales have tanked in recent years). The GM product that addresses them is the Buick LaCrosse. If Buick thought they wanted something bigger, it would have brought over the LWB Zeta-based Chinese Park Avenue. But it knows they’re too cheap to pay $50,000+ for a base Park Avenue.

Cadillac is trying to get a more premium image than “purveyor of massive but cheaply built land barges.” That’s why it discontinued the DTS with no real replacement, and will discontinue the XTS when its real flagship arrives.

Cadillac really needs to start purveying well built landbarges, though. That’s an area where they still have a good bit of brand equity, even after all these years of doing their darndest to destroy it.

The last (previous gen) Avalon I had as a rental had the most hilarious overabundance of horsepower to chassis I have ever experienced in a modern car. It was the equivalent of a ’60s floatbarge with the biggest monster V8 and no other options.

Nice looking car and all that, but again as I’ve previously stated Cadillac people or buyers are more interested in ride, comfort, luxury, interior space, dependability and prestige than drag racing or seeing how fast their car can corner on a mountain road in the Swiss Alps. Cadillac leave all that nonsense to the BMW, Audi and some Mercedes Benz people. Their not interested in your hot Rod Caddy and your sales lately prove that point.

The “German=unreliable” schtick is cute and all, but I have had fewer (1/3 as many) dealer requiring issues with my 328i than my Mom has had with her Prius-V in the same span of time and miles. I have no doubt that over the long run the BMW will certainly cost more to maintain, but you also get one heck of a better ride along the way.

And I say that as the owner of a German car who has had good luck and no complaints.

My anecdote is not data, and neither is yours. You ought to set aside your insatiable fanboy tendencies for once, and just look at the data for what it is. Data consists of more than just one person’s experience.

Germans cars are generally less reliable than average (although there are exceptions). There is plenty of, er, reliable research that supports that conclusion.

Some people get lucky and get the good ones. Others have bad luck but don’t mind it. Then there are those who get burned and don’t appreciate the scalding. Obviously, you are either in the first camp or else belong in the second but are in denial of it.

Yes, it is statistically accurate. But it is also statistically accurate that the difference is SMALL. Especially if you avoid doing stupid things like buying the first few years of a brand-new twin-turbo direct-injection engine.

You make your own luck. I have owned waaay too many European cars from Alfa to Peugeot to Volvo to Saab to BMW to MB to VW to FIAT, and now even an elderly Range Rover, and all but one or two have given sterling service at advanced ages for the most part. The one or two I should not have bought in the first place. Maintenance is key, and maintenance consists of more than just changing the oil on time when a car gets past 100K. Most of these cars were bought at an age and mileage when most Japanese cars in my area are already in the junkyard. Now maybe I did get lucky in that my purchases from the late 90s to early ’00s were mostly Swedish and not German. They certainly had a bad patch then, but I am not one to dwell on the past.

If Toyota made anything that remotely interested me I would buy it. I was quite excited by the FR-S until I drove one.

@krhodes1 – Yeah you want to avoid the 1st year’s production of any all-new generation of German cars, especially when diesels. However, that doesn’t guarantee problems have been solved by the 2nd or 3rd model year. Just that the OEM is fully aware of them, and will gladly replace failed, defective parts with new, defective parts.

And true, the added problems with German cars are minimal compared to say, GMC and Toyota, but that does’t mean they’re as easy or as cheap to fix.

FreedMike,
I applaud your passion, I really do. But I disagree with the notion that the luxury market is moving towards performance. BMW, who previously owned the performance image within luxury automakers has abandoned performance feel with its mainstream vehicles. Yes, the M division remains, and occasionally you might find a stick shift M car. But the reality of BMW sales are focused on luxurious ride, especially among crossovers. Look at all the recent product introductions: X6, X4, X1 – this is where the action is.

I think most people who follow cars would credit Cadillac with recently taking ownership of the sports sedan market, with the ATS and CTS introductions. But what was the result? Poor sales.

Now look at the Buick Encore, which we “experts” all thought would fail miserably. Sales success! Why? because that’s what consumers want. Ditto the SRX, which is Cadillac’s lone sales darling.

I wish GM could profitably build performance sedans too, but the plain truth is that there isn’t sufficient market in the US to make that work.

Exactly. All the top sellers in the luxury realm are about luxury, comfort and technology well before sport. Even BMW. So any idea that sportiness is the way forward- i.e. companies are getting sportier, customers want sportier, companies will die if they don’t get sportier- is pure fantasy. Hell, sports cars are getting more versatile and less sporty. People don’t want 1 trick ponies or cars that excel at things they don’t really plan to use them for.

Exactly this – my 328i wagon (non-sport) is no canyon carver, but it is just SUPREMELY competent and confidence inspiring in any situation. Whether driving through a winter snowstorm, running at 7/10ths on a windy back road, or tearing down the Autobahn at 130mph, it just never puts a foot wrong. While still riding smoothly and serenely.

And that is what makes these cars worth $15K more than a Camry. The Germans manage to make a car ride smoothly without that layer of squidge and wooliness that even the best Japanese and most American cars seem to have. Cadillac seems to have cracked this pretty well too, based on having had ATS and CTS rentals.

A GTI is just as competent for $15K less than your 328i. Much of that $15K is goes to BMW’s shareholders, not to competence and surefootedness. You could probably get a Camry to handle well on a mild Bilstein spring/shock kit and decent tires.

As I have said on here many times, if what makes a 328i worth $15K more than a Camry (or an Accord) is not obvious to you, or you don’t care, buy a Camry and spend the $15K on something that matters to you. It matters to me. Have you actually driven a 328i lately? I certainly drive more than my fair share of Camrys. A GTI is a performance bargain, but I would rather have the lowest performance version of a premium car than the highest performance version of a plebian one, and the GTI is just a Golf in gym shoes. It does not have even remotely the ride/handling balance of my car, nor is it anywhere near as nice inside. Or as well built. And my car is not even the “sporty” version of a 3-series.

Ultimately, everything beyond the bare minimum gets into the realm of diminishing returns. Whether it is cars, watches, houses, guitars, stereo equipment, bicycles, whatever. You pay disproportionately more for those last few percentage points of goodness. If it is worth it to you, spend the money. If not, don’t. But that doesn’t mean that a $10K set of Martin Logan speakers aren’t better than a set of $1K B&Ws. 10X as good? probably not. Is a $5K Rolex better than a $50 Timex? It doesn’t tell time as accurately as the Timex. I think the experience of my $44K BMW wagon is worth the money over my second choice, which would have been a $30K Jetta TDI wagon. Either would get me where I need to go, but I can easily afford the extra money for the extra goodness, so why not? The nicest watch I own is a Saab Turbo watch I got at a convention for $10 though…

The floatmobile is definitely dying, but I don`t know that performance is where it is really going. The shift is probably more towards a cruiser with some competence in a brisk driving situation. Most people want something that is comfortable and laid back, but that can give you a bit of fun when you prod it a bit. I bet only a fraction of a percent of buyers of the 5, E, GS or V-sport owners are the kind that actually have favourite back roads to go out to and stretch their car`s legs regularly — or even less likely, track it. Lexus is going in that direction because they were getting a reputation as being the most boring cars on the road; for them It`s more about building a car you can market as being sporting to people who want to think they are enthusiasts than actually building a competent sports sedan.

BMW is most certainly going in the opposite direction. I guess what the market is really doing, is realizing that Mercedes was right all along. 80% lux, but still 20% performance. Neither Lexus’ 90/10, nor BMWs 50/50 was ideal for the moneyed set. And certainly not Buicks 100/0.

..it’s going to take time for this to really sink in to the buying public. An uphill climb to attain brand cache, to be sure.

However, I would head right for this car if I could afford one – wouldn’t even consider the German offerings.

But, as a lowly middle-class professional in a flyover state… the best I, and those like me who are salivating over this sedan can do… is hope it’s well built so that in 24 months when used ones or lease returns are roughly $30k we can pick one up without concern that it’ll hold up for another 4-5 years.

This is the CTS V-Sport, which is not a CTS-V replacement. It’s kind of like a 335is vs an M3, or the M235i vs the M2.

Rest assured though, the Eurofication of Cadillac will probably result in “more boost” rather than more cylinders, which the CTS and ATS Vs absolutely need to deliver any kind of value in that subsegment.

I’d say maybe 65% of consumers are aware that the “V” exists with Cadillac. And I bet 20% of those are aware of the real differences between V-Sport and V. So for now, you’re getting lots of free extra credit with your V-Sport.

“I’m sure we can all take solace in how little it takes to upset you.”

You think I’m upset? Like sarcasm, not really caring, doesn’t translate well to text. It’s a shame you can’t see the utterly bored, dare I say barbiturate-esque look upon my face. All I’m saying is it helps to have a bit of information to back up whatever statements you make. There is a quote, whose provenance is rather cloudy (some say it originated with Abraham Lincoln, others say Mark Twain) that touches upon this point.

I didn’t expect such a petty mistake, quickly corrected by others, to upset you so much as to make a jab, and then respond to me calling you out for it.

The fact that there is a difference between the V-sport and the V isn’t exactly well known, which is fairly easy to see, as I wasn’t the only one unaware.

Seeing how they both have the same badges most would expect it to be a trim level difference, not a 150+/-HP difference. Although a TTV6 sounds like something out of much less than a premium car, the price of it in the CTS, as mentioned make it seem like a range topper.

I usually like GM cars and have owned them most of my life, but I must admit they are clueless. Cadillac is nothing more than a copy-cat of the Germans. Their cars have stupid letter names instead of real names, heck they even call this a V Sport just like BMW uses M Sport. They can’t come up with anything original. Another thing I hate is the crappy 3.6, turbo or not. That engine feels sooo underpowered, feels course, and sounds horrible. Also, CUE sucks and the Dodge Dart has a better technology package than a 80k Caddy. This car needs to be 10k cheaper, have a real name, have more interior space, and the 5.3L V8 and it would sell like hotcakes. Yes, the 5.3L. If you have driven a new pickup or Tahoe you know what I am talking about. It wouldn’t be quite as fast but would feel much quicker off the line while sounding awesome, all while achieving the same gas mileage. I think people still want to buy Cadillacs, they just don’t want this Cadillac.

Sportyaccordy is right, while the Germans are giving the customer what they want (slightly less sporty and a smoother ride) Cadillac is going in the reverse direction and over engineering cars that ride too sporty and cost way too much money. There is no way this car should cost 80k. That is crazy.

I have said all I can say about the CTS to ad nauseum so I won’t get into it again. To sum it up the car is not worth the money, neither is the new Escalade. They don’t have the name cachet of the Germans yet they want to charge the same money yet at the same time their materials are not up to par. It all starts with the door handles, the first thing you touch and they are extremely subpar. The new Impala has better door handles than the CTS which is sad. The CTS leather and fit and finish are nowhere near the Germans, the Japanese and not even close to Hyundai’s new Genesis. The interior space is just small and the backseat pathetic and cramped with the thinnest cushions possible.

Personally I think the new Genesis is good enough to seriously consider passing over the Germans for and Lexus has kind of lost its way and I don’t think they are better than Hyundai anymore. When you spend $60K plus on a luxury car it should look and feel like one and have proper space. I am tired of hearing about how this car drives as an excuse to make up for its other glaring deficiencies.

Go to your local Cadillac dealer, go pull on the door pull, look at the mechanism and the cheap plastic inside (actually saw one broken on a brand new one on the lot), then go to your Hyundai dealership, pull on the door handle of the new Genesis, feel how smooth it pulls out and then retracts like a luxury car should do. Night and day. And look at the ridiculous prices of their SUVS, no wonder Range Rovers are selling out and more and more people keep buying Mercedes GLs, can you blame them?

There are cars I would drive if the price or lease was good enough and I just don’t like the CTS, it does not feel good inside, no matter how many times I have driven or ridden in it. I would honestly take the new Impala over the CTS if the lease prices were the same.

I want Cadillac to be as good as the Germans and the reason for picking one over the other not to be quality. Several posters seem to blame Cadillac for offering the V Sport as if it is the only way to get a CTS. I admire Cadillac for that option. But I don’t understand why they chose to make this model bigger while reducing backseat room. Putting in thin foam to fractionally increase dimensions isn’t the way. GM did it with the Malibu too. Every five years my mom has a jack leg plumber put in a $39 bathroom sink faucet. She refused/refuses to let me install a nice quality one. And for the irritating length of time it takes it to fail, the handles feel draggy and flimsy. Sometimes quality and smoothness can be taken for granite, but junk slaps me in the face, and that’s how the door handles sound here which is a shame.
My best friend works for an automotive group with multiple dealerships. Cadillacs are never mentioned, but the Genesis is highly regarded. My brother who in the past has owned a Legend S sedan and a 540i with manuals is now 56 and with knee surgery around the corner. His desire and days of shifting are over. Last week I mentioned the CTS when he said he was replacing vehicles. He shrugged that off. He’s looking for a Genesis sedan, black over tan.

Interesting that someone who owned BMWs and Acuras is interested in the Genesis. I just turned in one at DFW earlier today. It LOOKS great, on the outside. And it looks OK on the inside, until you turn it on. Then you have the nastiest low-res displays ever on the dash, and all the controls feel like cheap crap. The dash creaks incessantly, and everything you touch feels incredibly cheap. They are a bargain, but they feel it too. Maybe the very latest one is better, this was a ’13. It did go like a missile, but the ride/handling balance was nothing special at all. Not as good as a Regal Turbo certainly, never mind the CTS/ATS.

I could see a Camry driver being impressed by it, but not people who have owned real premium cars. I’ve had CTS’ as rentals (not the latest one yet), they are in a different league in terms of quality feel. I think the CTS is a genuinely nice car, just not nice enough for me to choose one over a BMW for the same price. And the CTS is one of the few cars that is actually on my radar, as there is actually a CTS WAGON.

Thanks for the feedback krhodes1. He’s considering used, but I’m not sure how many he’s driven. A trusted mechanic told him they were great. I was wondering why their resale looks dismal when I looked on Autotrader and 2010s are cheaper than 2010 Camrys.
The CTS wagon tail lights are works of art.

Why would I pay 60k when for ~10% more I can get the real top of the line?

My feeling is that they are priced too close together and too similarly purposed. Actual transaction prices may end up making the gap bigger and I have a feeling the used market prices will also have a bigger gap but as someone who is interested in buying a four door muscle car in the next few years the pricing on this just doesn’t make sense.

Will be interesting to see what the 2015 pricing and trim levels look like and if the pricing gap between the “sportier” and “sportiest” versions grows wider.